what happens when a driver refuses to haul unsafe load.

Sounds like it may be time to make a Federal case out of that incident, although there may be more to this story that's not being reported.

 

The person/persons who will get paid are the ones the load fell on. Company let that load roll after driver said it was unsafe, then it fell! Huge liability for that company.

 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1519510.html


Before Justices PATTERSON, PURYEAR and HENSON.

OPINION

Safeshred, Inc. fired Louis Martinez after he refused to drive a commercial vehicle he found to be unsafe and noncompliant with federal and state regulations. Martinez sued Safeshred, alleging he had been terminated for refusing to commit an illegal act. See Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex.1985) (recognizing exception to at-will-employment doctrine when employee is fired for refusal to commit illegal act). After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment awarding Martinez $7,569.18 in economic damages for lost wages and benefits, $10,000 in compensatory damages for non-economic losses, including mental anguish, and $200,000 in exemplary damages. Safeshred appeals, arguing in five issues on appeal that (1) exemplary damages are not available in a Sabine Pilot cause of action absent the showing of an independent tort; (2) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to prove malice, a predicate finding to an award of exemplary damages; (3) the amount of exemplary damages awarded is so excessive as to violate the United States Constitution and Texas law; (4) compensatory damages for mental anguish and related emotional losses are not available in a Sabine Pilot cause of action absent the showing of an independent tort; and (5) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the award of compensatory damages. We affirm the awards of economic and exemplary damages and reverse the award of compensatory damages for non-economic losses.





Well they took away his lottery like payday. Oh boo hoo. I am sure his lawyer is heartbroken.

They did not vacate his award to make him whole(compensatory), and in fact held the award of an excess above actual losses of $10,000.

People use the court systems to acquire money that is not theirs, and they have no right to. Quite correctly the TSC put an end to that nonsense in this case.

Kinda like that inferior driver for Prime Opie was trying to get some huge payday for. She did not earn it nor was she entitled to it. Neither is Mr. Martinez.


Yes he was correct in refusing to haul, if a little slow to act on it.

I find when looking into any court decision it is best to read the actual document's instead of the slanted view of the paparazzi. I bet most of you commenting thought he received nothing didn't you?

 

The above is the case as the lower court/jury trial determined. You posted the Appeals Court case link, not the Supreme Court case link which you will find here:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1599251.html

Actually, the Court of Appeals did this:
CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court awarding $7,569.18 in economic damages and $200,000 in exemplary damages. We reverse the judgment of the trial court awarding $10,000 in compensatory damages for non-economic losses, including mental anguish, and render judgment that Martinez take nothing in non-economic compensatory damages. -SAFESHRED, INC., Appellant v. Louis MARTINEZ, III, Appellee. No. 03-08-00626-CV. -- April 23, 2010

And the Supreme Court did this:

III. Conclusion
In summary, we hold that (1) a Sabine Pilot claim sounds in tort; and (2) punitive or exemplary damages are available under such a claim with a showing of malice surrounding the plaintiff's firing. Because there was legally insufficient evidence of malice in this case, the exemplary damages award must be reversed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed insofar as it affirms the award of exemplary damages, and in all other respects is affirmed. - SAFESHRED, INC., Petitioner, v. Louis MARTINEZ, III, Respondent. No. 10-0426. Argued Oct. 24, 2011. -- April 20, 2012


What this did was to take away the "payday" as you call it, $200,000 exemplary/punitive damages, and also the $10,000 compensatory damages the Appeals Court took away and only left the economic damages of $7569.18.

Not sure about the Prime Opie case, however whether Martinez deserved it or not, is opinion.

In fact, the Texas Supreme Court didn't put an end to it, it just clarified what it expects. What Martinez did do, is force the TSC to elaborate on how it expects it's earlier decision Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, (recognizing exception to at-will-employment doctrine when employee is fired for refusal to commit illegal act) is to be viewed, which is the precedent Martinez's lawyer was using. As a tort(civil) versus as a contract. Safeshred tried to say they couldn't be subjected to exemplary/punitive damages (usually used as civil deterrent), because the employment was contractual. The court says no, at-will-employment is not a contract, in fact Sabine Pilot is a narrow exception to at-will-employment to prevent employers from being able to force employees to do illegal activities to keep their job, without recourse against the employer. It's really a watered down whistle-blower kind of case, that creates an option for fired employees to have recourse against employers.

What's interesting and why I think Martinez did deserve his awards is that Martinez's case was upheld by the Courts.. they proved their case. This was simply an excessively conservative court when it came to allowing punitive damages by creating a futher barrier to actually collecting the punitive damages. Had Martinez, reported his employer after the first incident and then been fired when they were being investigated, there would have been two actions the employer did to the same employee to justify the award on a whistle-blower basis. Just being fired for refusing to do an illegal activity wasn't sufficient, they needed to either make it difficult for him to be hired elsewhere (court doesn't understand what the job reference in trucking can do to employees chances), or hassle him after the fact, or fire him after he'd made an official complaint to authorities.

He did exactly what DOT/FMCSA/STAA/Federal Laws require of you, and was found to have merit.

I agree, but you also need to continue to follow the case and check all the cites, precedence etc.... and no, other than the economic damages originally allowed ,rightfully so, he didn't receive anything. Albeit the employer has no incentive to not try this again which he will as witnessed by the driver after Martinez actually losing the load.

 

Totally agree!

 

I read this as he got the $200,000 but did not get the mental $10,000. I am not a lawyer, yet.

 

That was the appeal courts ruling.

This was the Texas Supreme Court ruling ----

This removes the $200,000 exemplary damages. (reversed). As far as the rest of the case/ruling by the other two courts, the Texas Supreme Court agrees with the logic, reasoning and legal interpretation of the lower courts with the exception of the $200,000 exemplary damages and agreeing to remove the $10,000 also from the award and only leaving the lost wages amount of $7,569.18 in economic damages.